Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki - it is really easy.

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Ac.rokossowski3.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Ac.rokossowski3.jpg]]).

If you created the content yourself, enter {{own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Konstanty_Rokossowski_Polski_Mundur.jpg, was missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. The file probably has been deleted. If you've got all required information, request undeletion providing this information and the link to the concerned file ([[:File:Konstanty_Rokossowski_Polski_Mundur.jpg]]).

If you created the content yourself, enter {{own}} as the source. If you did not add a licensing template, you must add one. You may use, for example, {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} or {{Cc-zero}} to release certain rights to your work.

If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so.

Please add the required information for this and other files you have uploaded before adding more files. If you need assistance, please ask at the help desk. Thank you!

I'm not sure I understand the point of this edit. The Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition was a fair in Seattle in 1909. While many of the relevant images were batch uploaded, many were not: I personally have scanned (or photographed) and uploaded several dozen. - Jmabel ! talk 17:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just followed this list, feel free to revert. Nemo 17:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I will revert: it was the target of a batch upload, but much in the category does not come from the batch upload. - Jmabel ! talk 19:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Ciao, mi permetto di scriverti in inglese, visto che mi sento più a mio agio in questa lingua. Sorry, but I guess there is a misunderstanding. This is more or less a small initiative from the de:Portal:Südtirol. We have a couple of users there, who will create a couple of monument lists for South Tyroelan municipalities (see de:Kategorie:Liste (Baudenkmäler in Südtirol)) and upload a couple of pictures... That's it, no need for a massive project management, a permission or an authorization by a chapter, an organization plan or whatever. If the Italian chapter finally decides to participate in this contest (and I hope so!), feel free to remove South Tyrol from the list, since it may be regarded as a small subdivision. But as long as there is no final decision from the Italian chapter, please don't remove South Tyrol. We will participate anyway, no matter what the chapter says. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 12:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Could you please show me the guideline that we need a permission by a chapter to participate? And well, I'm not a lawyer, but publishing pictures of buildings, whose architects died before 1941, is certainly not illegal (i.e. estimated 95% of all cultural heritage monuments in South Tyrol). Otherwise you should start a deletion request for the complete content of the Category:Buildings in Italy. Anyway, good luck for your collaboration with the ministry. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 12:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you planning to create a project site? I'm interested to see, if you get the permission to take pictures of the still protected buildings. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 12:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we could think about an cooperation between WMIT and WMAT for South Tyrol WLM? Many lists will be on de.wp, so it would be a logical consequence :) Greets --AleXXw 01:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Mai-Sachme, sadly, I didn't look at that category, but most photos actually are illegal, because everything considered "cultural heritage" needs a permission (with a fee) to be photographed, in Italy. There are many photos on Commons because Commons doesn't care about non-copyright restrictions and users can take their risks, but still it's something which as an organisation we can't promote as far as it's against the law. The matter is, sadly, very complex. We don't have public pages about it because we're examining a lot of different ways to address the issue and we don't know how it will end. Nemo 16:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

AleXXw, we'd certainly love to have a cooperation! But again, I'm only the messenger here, you should talk with Aubrey and the board because they're taking care of this. Nemo 16:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me, how I can fix this type of problem, I see that you have corrected the issue of the thumbnails, however, I would like to learn to do, thank you very much --The Photographer (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've closed your request and granted you the reviewer user right. Before you start reviewing, make sure to read Commons:Flickr_files. Also remember COM:FOP & COM:Flickr washing. I recommend installing the review script into your .js file with importScript('User:Rillke/LicenseReview.js'); - it simplifies the choices and gives you thank you text to post with your Flickr account. You can add {{User reviewer}} to your user page as well. If you ever have questions, Commons:License review is pretty thorough on the process, you can ask me, or just wait for another editor to review a questionable image. Good luck!

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].

This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.

Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

Could you please explain what "freely licensed font" is? I used "Hei" and "Kai" for the title and subline which are used the most often in China. Besides, do you think we shall argue only for 1 or 2 millimeter? If you insist, of course, I can try not crossing the line. Regards.--Symane (talk) 09:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Please see Odder's talk page. Clairification on the copyright and modification for the subline have been made, I hope the change of the logo could be quickly implemented. Thanks.--Symane (talk) 11:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any concrete proof that the two fonts (Hei and Kai) I used for the logo are copyrighted, as my quotation clearly attests they are not?--Symane (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the feedback on the Welcome to Commons draft! I've done a big set of revisions based on the feedback so far; if you have a chance, please take a look and let me know if you notice anything else that can be improved. We're hoping to have the text more or less set by a week from now, so that the designer can get started building the layout.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Nemo, I did go down that route quite a while ago, but was put off by the inaccessibility of the category system—just learning what the likely options were appeared to be laborious. Tony1 (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

(Just for the record:) Hello, I have removed the "autopatrolled" flag from you Account. "image reviewer" right includes autopatrol, so this right is redundant , Regards--Steinsplitter (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

If Jean-Fred doesn't first, I'll probably paste in the text next week on the Commons page so that we can set it up for the translate extension. I haven't ever worked with InDesign myself (only Scribus), but I think replacing the blocks of text is going to be straightforward (if tedious) for someone who knows how to use it. And no, it's just my personal dropbox account; I just wanted to get it in a shareable form as soon as possible. If it's allowed, I'll get it onto wikimediafoundation.org as a more stable home soon; I know that we typically do that with the Scribus source files, but I'm not aware of us hosting InDesign source files (even though those are more commonly what people are looking for).--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I've copied the text, which I think Jean-Fred will set up for translation.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Nope. The crop is an obvious improvement for the stated purpose (including the current usages of the file) and title, so it can't be considered a substantial change unless you think that only the repetition of the logo was the point of the image. The guideline, as I said, doesn't forbid such overwrites. --Nemo 05:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to upload test files to see right now, but I've never gotten such a script error myself (although UW does hang for a little while when it's submitting everything at the end of the upload process). Matma Rex (talk) 09:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

G'day, just a quick greeting wishing you and your family happy holidays and all the best for 2014. And of course, a big thank you for putting a leg up by doing what you do on Commons, and helping to make it the fantastic project that it is. Greetings from a warm west coast of Aussie. russavia (talk) 02:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Frze, thank you for noticing my photo, I had almost forgot that nice moment. I'm afraid I can't help you with that monument. As my photo shows, I had other things in my mind; I remember that I tried to look at the fortifications but I didn't really manage to do so and I know nothing of that "Napoleon table". :( --Nemo 20:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Where are you from? Do you have friends in Gdansk, can you to invite them to a walk to that table? ?Frze> talk 20:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm from Italy and I don't know anyone in city I'm afraid. Have you checked Flickr? --Nemo 21:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Hi, there seems to be a flurry of related edits on a certain file. I have processed the related OTRS ticket only against the information provided, and all the related reports are now licensed in the same format. This included this change. I am aware of the WMF staff template, however the OTRS ticket was a personal release. As there is some debate with regard to who paid whom, or who was under contract to whom, I suggest leaving this for the time being. Hopefully there will soon be "official" statements and it may be best to revisit the format or what templates to apply at that time.

From an OTRS and licensing perspective what has been done is sufficient. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

... but I think I've seen you over on the Internet Archivve & thought you might be able to clue me in.

I do .djvu & .pdf source file "fix-ups" when I have the time over on en.wikisource and I run into this problem every so often on IA when attempting to [re]derive a file that I've "patched" for eventual source-file replacement upload to Commons.

Long story short... What is the best way to get folks over there to re-start the "derive" process once it craps out for any number of their "mysterious" reasons. I'm talking about

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

The native browser rendering I had fixed with an appropriate prolog, but yes, rsvg didn't like it much. I hoped someone could fix the rendering without increasing the size (it's quite a performance drain e.g. on translatewiki.net main page) but revert is the right thing to do at this point. Thanks! --Nemo 14:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I noticed from stats like [1] vs. [2] (422 vs. 1019 KB downloaded). Most of it was a PediaPress logo that svgo reduced by 98 %... Just ask webpagetest to measure the main page a few times and compare results with lighter vs. those with heavier SVG logos. The 20 KB of OSM logo are not an emergency, for sure, but I don't care if someone with broken clients sees an incorrect PediaPress logo when that allows to download 400 KB less. --Nemo 15:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

You are using the SVG directly, of course. Maybe fork the OSM Logo. It was just that I used PNG thumbnails created from it in user scripts. -- Rillke(q?) 15:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Nikerabbit made it so because usually the SVG is lighter. Sure, no big deal, I've already reuploaded locally. :-) --Nemo 15:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Federico, when I saw the icons used in meta I made some of them better, and made others to replace the worst of them. It is almost not to see the difference but nevertheless I made the replacements. You reverted it. If you do not like when I try to make things better, I take distance from interfering with your domain. Sorry if my edit upsets you. sarang♥사랑 12:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

If you created this template, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Hello Nemo bis. You are receiving this message as a license reviewer. As you know, OTRS processes a large amount of tickets relating to image releases (called "permissions"). As a license reviewer, you may have the skills necessary to contribute to this team. If you are interested in learning more about OTRS or to volunteer please visit Meta-Wiki. Tell your friends! Thank you. Rjd0060 18:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Hi Nemo bis, are you sure this is correct? I really can't imagine it is. Where you say "therefore," it is actually not "therefore" -- other jurisdictions also assume "that a creative photo of a painting is not plagiarism of the painting itself, but a work on its own," but it doesn't follow from that that "it's allowed for the photographer to release any sufficiently creative photo of any painting." It just regularly means there are two works, protected independently of each other -- and re-using them requires two licenses, one from either of the two right holders. Best, — Pajz (talk) 11:54, 15 June 2015 (UTC)